Cantwell on Fee Demo

[klenke]

...yeah, the urinals at Russian Mafia headquarters.

 

...Shoot! Shouldn't have said that. Now I'm a dead man.

 

But seriously...

[MysticNacho]

I think I'm in line with mattp and greg on this one. I'm certainly willing to support wilderness programs and such, but I don't want to pay outragous fees left right and center. I'm poor, after all, poor! True, I already pay taxes for everything, but I can't say I mind paying taxes either. From what I've read in the paper and magazines etc., land management agencies are underfunded, so I'll give 'em a five or something. But no higher! Fee-demo needs revision, not elimination.

 

[ 05-06-2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: MysticNacho ]

[Fairweather]

The Fee Demo is supposed to help maintain trails and access?? Why are roads and trails being left unrepaired when they wash out? I wonder what % of the $$ go to enforcement of said fee? Is the fee demo just a federal jobs program? I'll pay for trail maintainance and access, but not for a $400,000 (+?) outhouse at Washington Pass. Gas taxes ought to pay for state highway facilities. Go figure.

[Greg_W]

Ask yourselves why they want extra money out of us for trail and road maintenance and yet Forest Service biologists are recommending closing more and more roads in the backcountry. They want us to pay for access, yet they are slowly closing off access to more and more areas. Example: Rick Larsen (U.S. Representative, WA) and his plan to create the Index Wilderness, which would close roads and make access more and more difficult.

 

...things to think on...We can discuss further at the Pube Club tonight at NW Brewhouse in Redmond.

 

Greg

[Rodchester]

Just thinking out loud here. The pay to play mentality not only allows our congress to avoid having to do thier jobs...it seems to be creating an amusement park mentality in the existing lands/parks/forests.

 

I remember a while back some guy posted something about the privatization of all public lands, specifically parks and forests. But the pay to play mentality seems to do that, except with Uncle Sam as the owner and operator.

[Stefan]

People pay for fishing licenses. This is recreation. (You still pay state taxes.)

 

People pay for sno-parks. This is recreation. (You still pay state taxes.)

 

You all would pay the fee for climbing Denali. (You still pay federal taxes.)

 

I bet you all would pay if the Forest Service was held more accountable for the money for trail fees. I agree the $400K toilet at Washington Pass was a waste of money. The vast majority of people who use that facility do not or will not ever buy a trail park pass.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefan:

People pay for fishing licenses. This is recreation. (You still pay state taxes.)

 

People pay for sno-parks. This is recreation. (You still pay state taxes.)

 

You all would pay the fee for climbing Denali. (You still pay federal taxes.)

 

I bet you all would pay if the Forest Service was held more accountable for the money for trail fees. I agree the $400K toilet at Washington Pass was a waste of money. The vast majority of people who use that facility do not or will not ever buy a trail park pass.

---

We don't pay a state income tax, but you are right. All the tags, stamps, endorsements, etc. that you need to hunt in this state are bullshit, but this is not a hunting bulletin board. I, for one, would still be against trail fees regardless of level of accountability.

 

Greg

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MysticNacho:

I think I'm in line with mattp and greg on this one. ... Fee-demo needs revision, not elimination.

---

Actually, I am opposed to fee demo altogether. Public lands should be managed for public benefit, and in my view the preservation of wild places and the provision of recreational access are two important objectives that should be funded by Congress. The point I was trying to make was that if there was only one, small, easily paid fee to use public lands, I probably wouldn't care all that much but it would still be wrong.

[freeclimb9]

Stefan,

the Forest Service being "accountable"? Dude, it seems you don't know how the FS works with regard to subsidizing tree harvests and mineral extraction.

[glen]

A couple of things have become apparent reading over the sets of posts on Fee Demo:

1. A number of people are unhappy for a number of reasons, not all of which are consistent with eaach other.

2. Not buying a pass is consistent with non-support of fee demo, and certainly cheaper. However this seems to be a rather ineffective approach in terms of actually causing a change.

3. The small number of letters being written to a diverse set of agencies is recieving little attention outside the context of form letters.

4. Protests (ie, June 15th) are useful more as an agent of public awareness gathering than actually causing immediate change. Without media coverage, this is likely to be ineffective also.

5. The discontent with Fee Demo, specifics aside, seem to be part of a larger disgruntlement with uncle sam.

 

Sorry if this seems like a wet blanket, but I'm just trying to get my head around what might *actually* make a difference, not just make me feel like I put in at least a minimum of effort so I don't feel like a total bump on a log.

[mattp]

The second point I tried to make was that I believe anti-tax or anti-government arguments are not likely to win anyone over to an anti-fee-demo position. I think our arguments should focus on policy issues like exactly how the Forest Service should provide public access rather than Constitutional arguments like double taxation or taxation without representation. True or not, the latter arguments are just going to cause many people to close their ears altogether -- particularly government officials.

[David_Parker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefan:

People pay for fishing licenses. This is recreation. (You still pay state taxes.)

 

I bet you all would pay if the Forest Service was held more accountable for the money for trail fees. I agree the $400K toilet at Washington Pass was a waste of money. The vast majority of people who use that facility do not or will not ever buy a trail park pass.

---

Maybe they should make the public pay to use the damn toilet! Not really that outrageous if you think about it. I've seen pay toilets before!!

[Stefan]

Freeclimb9: I said "if" the Forest Service was held accountable. I have seen that they are not accountable. I can dream for accountability from the Forest Service.

 

All others: A lot of you complain about the land not being free for public use. THE LAND IS FREE FOR PUBLIC USE! It is just that the trails and and pit toilets at trailheads are not free.

[freeclimb9]

The increase from $25 to $50 for a Golden Eagle pass is one of many examples of the consequences of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program authorized by Congress. Some Parks tack on additional fees (eg. $15 at Rainier for a blue crap sack). The Program was to begin in '95 and last for three years. It was supposed to end on September 30, 1998. Its continuation signals a failure in Congress to adequately fund the agencies that manage public lands. In my mind, that is the central issue, not any anti-goverment, or anti-tax screed.

[cj001f]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefan:

People pay for fishing licenses. This is recreation. (You still pay state taxes.)

---

Uh - the majority of fishing livense fees goes to support hatcheries & put and take fisheries. This is an ongoing cost - and directly related to the recreation.

 

Using old logging roads to access trailheads is of minimal cost - and I've already paid for the construction of these to subsidize the logging industry. Yes they have upkeep costs and administrative costs - but these could be paid for by other revenue sources.

 

And no I still wouldn't pay if the Forest Circus were held accountable for their waste, sloth and incompetence.

 

Carl

[cj001f]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefan:

All others: A lot of you complain about the land not being free for public use. THE LAND IS FREE FOR PUBLIC USE! It is just that the trails and and pit toilets at trailheads are not free.

---

If you can't access w/o paying - THE LAND IS NOT FREE! All you've done is shifted the charge.

 

Carl

[Lowell_Skoog]

Going back to the original letter from Maria Cantwell, I'm surprised that so many people think she didn't say anything. Here it is again:

 

quote:

---

I am concerned, however, by studies showing that the fees result in reduced access to public lands, and I am also interested in learning if the program has led to reduced federal appropriations for maintenance. I am also worried that over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised. Finally, and most critically, if the program is to continue, coordination of the fee system between lands owned by different agencies must be improved.

---

These are all reasons for her to vote against the program. Can you imagine George Bush or any of the House Republican leadership saying this? I don't think so. We should flood her with letters hammering on these points.

 

My biggest concern is Cantwell's second sentence, "That over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." That's exactly what the backers of the program want. They want to manage the forests as a recreational money maker, for Uncle Sam and his private "partners."

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lowell Skoog:

Going back to the original letter from Maria Cantwell, I'm surprised that so many people think she didn't say anything. Here it is again:

 

quote:

---

I am concerned, however, by studies showing that the fees result in reduced access to public lands, and I am also interested in learning if the program has led to reduced federal appropriations for maintenance. I am also worried that over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised. Finally, and most critically, if the program is to continue, coordination of the fee system between lands owned by different agencies must be improved.

---

These are all reasons for her to vote against the program. Can you imagine George Bush or any of the House Republican leadership saying this? I don't think so. We should flood her with letters hammering on these points.

 

My biggest concern is Cantwell's second sentence, "That over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." That's exactly what the backers of the program want. They want to manage the forests as a recreational money maker, for Uncle Sam and his private "partners."

---

Lowell,

 

I believe that Republicans were among the first to oppose (Chenowith, Idaho?) this program which was imposed under Bill Clinton. Your attempts to portray Democrats as our allies is way off base. This issue crosses all traditional political idealogies. Nice try.

 

Republicans generally won't tackle the issue because (overall) hikers are not big "R" supporters. Democrats won't help kill the fee because they never met a tax/fee they did not like. I think these fees will be with us for a while. Like I said earlier, I 'll reluctantly pay the "Trail Park" fee, but I WILL NOT pay $15 to climb St Helens, Adams, or Baker as I view this as pure extortion. Additionally, my grudging acceptance of the trail park will fade quickly if some of these washed out trail access roads don't get repaired soon or if popular access roads like Middle Fork Snoqualmie are shut down.

 

[ 05-07-2002, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[Rodchester]

I also think this is not a clear D or R issue.

 

Clinton, and many if not most Ds in congress, backed the fee demo plan orginally and again the extend the testing period. This is the politicians' way of not having to do what we elect them to do, manage the budget, balance the books.

 

Cantwell SAYS has concerns? So what. She isn't going to change her mind to go against it because she is a D. She is going to vote such that she risks alienating as few people as possible. Climbers and hikers that disagree with the fee demo are few, when compared to the masses anyway.

 

Fight the power puddy

[willstrickland]

The thing I believe most people overlook in this issue is the fact that it originall passed as a RIDER to an appropriations bill. Riders in particular amount to political blackmail in my mind. If demo was going on nationwide, I'd say the "double taxation" doesn't fly, but as it is...

 

I think the point that we need to focus on concrete, particular points, is a valid one. We won't get far by playing the ideaology card.

 

Arguing Dem v. Rep is ridiculous...if you honestly think that either of these orgnaizations have your best interest in mind, you've been sucessfully brainwashed.

 

So if you're tired of getting screwed by the standard crew of politicos, vote for me in the next election...I'll be running for congress on the greenbud ticket in '04.

 

HAYDUKE LIVES!

[Lowell_Skoog]

Okay, I agree it's not productive to frame the debate in partisan terms. My point was to contrast Maria Cantwell's statements (which people here said had no content) with the position of other politicians whose position is known. We know that Bush is pushing to make the fees permanent.

 

Partisanship aside, what do you think of Cantwell's concern: "Over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." Does this sound reasonable?

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lowell Skoog:

Okay, I agree it's not productive to frame the debate in partisan terms. My point was to contrast Maria Cantwell's statements (which people here said had no content) with the position of other politicians whose position is known. We know that Bush is pushing to make the fees permanent.

 

Partisanship aside, what do you think of Cantwell's concern: "Over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." Does this sound reasonable?

---

Shit ya if they can make $10 000/yr from sport rappel guiding dudes and $5000 a yr from climbers they are gonna choose the rappeleers in a heartbeat.

 

Or maybe bolt all the crack routes to get more climbers to come to rais more revenue. Here comes line of bolts up the Outer Space crack....

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lowell Skoog:

Okay, I agree it's not productive to frame the debate in partisan terms. My point was to contrast Maria Cantwell's statements (which people here said had no content) with the position of other politicians whose position is known. We know that Bush is pushing to make the fees permanent.

 

Partisanship aside, what do you think of Cantwell's concern: "Over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." Does this sound reasonable?

---

Lowell;

 

I read that as land managers would push for building of new campgrounds and/or enlarging existing ones in order to handle a greater capacity. Doing so would create space for a larger number of the paying public, thus enlarging the incoming revenue. Sort of an "...if you build it, people will pay to use it" mentality. What was your take?

 

Nice chatting with a local legend, by the way.

Greg

[Lowell_Skoog]

I'm concerned that they'll build more than just campgrounds. Some years ago the Wenatchee NF hardened trails for dirt bikers in the Mad River area. The last winter or two the Okanogan NF has allowed snowmobile rentals to operate on USFS land up the Chewack River. (I don't have first-hand knowledge of these activities. I've just heard about them.)

 

As Congress cuts funding and forces forest managers to rely on fees, developments like this could become more and more compelling, especially if they draw people who are more willing to pay than muscle powered users. This would make the forests less and less attractive to anybody but the motor-heads. People like Harvey Manning have complained about this sort of thing for years in the Mountaineers hiking books.

[Downhill]

Is anyone participating in a local organized effort to oppose/terminate this "trial" - or, if not, aware of such a effort? Any national groups?

 

Glen - Anything more From Cantwell? has anyone contacted P. Murray's office?

 

DH